5 Prayers For Past, Present, And Future Southern Baptist Conflicts
Last week Southern Baptists learned that one of their largest churches, Prestonwood Baptist Church, is going to push pause on Cooperative Program (CP) giving. For those who know the role CP giving plays in SBC life, this announcement is a big deal. CP giving is often a key standard by which leaders and churches are judged. The CP is significant in SBC life because it is the funding mechanism for almost all of its cooperative ministries—a list that includes the largest missionary force in world history, several of the world’s largest seminaries, colleges, universities, mercy ministries, and more.
But the CP isn’t perfect. When over 50,000 Southern Baptist churches cooperate for the advancement of the Great Commission, it’s reasonable to expect consistent frustrations and disagreements. That’s why Southern Baptists have always and will always have discussions about how best to handle the monies given to the CP. Disagreements are the norm. But the action taken by Prestonwood isn’t. Whether you think Prestonwood’s actions are justified or not, I think we can all agree it’s unusual.
How should Southern Baptists respond to this action? Should they follow suit? Should they speak out against it? Based on my conversations over the past few days, the plans for how best to deal with the current Southern Baptist problems and divisions are just about as varied as I’ve ever seen. If you’re not new to these types of disagreements, you know it’s simplistic to act like the problems are only on one side of a divide. They’re almost always more complex than is immediately obvious. That’s why, in the midst of all of the problems, I’d like to ask you to consider praying the following 5 prayers with me.
I Pray That Southern Baptists Pray More For Unity – Jesus prayed that his followers would be united (Jn 17). The Apostles prayed that their followers would be united (Eph. 1; Phil 1). They prayed for unity amongst God’s people because unity amongst God’s people won’t happen without God’s help. Division is what happens when we’re left to ourselves. It feels more natural to us. We need God’s help to be unified. I love the way the SBC president Steve Gaines and the SBC president before him, Ronnie Floyd, have led our convention to be a people of prayer. The church I lead, Redemption City Church, is currently going through a #30DaysOfPrayer, not because we’re disciplined, but because we’re desperate. We’re desperate for God to bring about the outcomes we want to see, that we know we’re unable to control. Let it be said of Southern Baptists, that through all of the conflicts, we became more of a people of prayer than we were before. Let’s be like Jesus and the Apostles and pray for unity.
I Pray That Southern Baptists Pursue Unity Where It Is Most Difficult – Unity isn’t just difficult, it’s impossible. Because we all will be wronged enough to have “good” reasons to avoid pursuing unity, while feeling like the victim. Thankfully, the Spirit of God loves to use the gospel to unite people that are “impossible” to unite. No doubt people thought it was “impossible” to unite Jews and Gentiles in the Ephesian churches. But the Apostle Paul wanted them to understand that the gospel isn’t just meant to unite people that have small disagreements. It’s meant to unite the most deeply divided peoples. Ken Sande was right when he observed that peace doesn’t just happen, it’s made. A gospel that is glorious enough to reconcile a holy God to unholy men and women, is certainly able to reconcile unholy men and women to each other. I’m praying that Southern Baptists will pursue unity where it is most difficult. I pray we see more moments in SBC life like we saw last year at the SBC when Steve Gaines and J.D. Greear came together in unity. While it will mean different things for different people, but it will mean something for all sides of all debates. The gospel is powerful enough to bring unity about for all sides of all disagreements and divisions.
I Pray That A Spirit Of Humility Characterizes Southern Baptists – One of the greatest threats to unity is pride. It divided humankind from God in the Garden of Eden, and it’s been dividing us ever since. Pride doesn’t just want to be right, it wants to be recognized as right. Often times, pride wants to be recognized as right at the expense of someone else. But most of the time, frankly, it’s hard to know exactly where pride is present in these disagreements—even though we know it’s there. But God sees it. That’s why we need to pray that he’d help us all see it and turn from it. Unity grows in the soil of humility. I think we can all agree that pride is present on every side of every debate, although it’s tough to say where exactly. That’s why I’m praying that the Spirit helps us see it in our own hearts and turn from it. I’m praying that we humble ourselves enough to own 100% of our part of the problems we’re in. I’m praying that we might even be willing in some situations to be wronged, like Jesus, and still work for the good of those who are doing us wrong. Unity depends on humility.
I Pray That A Spirit Of Love Characterizes Southern Baptists – Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35). He didn’t say that we’d always be lovable, but that he wants us to always love. The Apostle Paul called the Corinthian church to a love that is defined like this: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” This kind of love, strangely, requires us to be in circumstances where other brothers and sisters in Christ have wronged us to the point that we would naturally get irritated and resentful. This kind of love requires the kind of situation that Southern Baptists have been and are in right now. That’s why I’m praying that we use our deep disagreements and divisions to display the undeserved love of Christ to each other.
I Pray That Southern Baptists Avoid The Payback Mentality – Jesus called his disciples to love their enemies (Matt. 5:44). The Apostle Paul had to remind the Ephesian Christians that we don’t wrestle against flesh and blood, but are to have “gospel of peace” shoes that enable us to run to any relational conflict requiring supernatural reconciliation (Eph 6:10-20). One of the reasons they had to tell Christians those kinds of things is because 1st century Christians didn’t naturally respond graciously to relational conflict anymore than 21st century Christians do. Regardless of where all of the current discussions lead, I’m praying that we can avoid the payback mentality that says whatever you do to me, I’ll do worse to you. I don’t want to see pro-ERLC Southern Baptists use this action to justify pulling away from SBC life, which, inevitably, will lead to an endless series of “back and forths,” until SBC life reeks with the smoke of burned relational bridges. Let’s expect to be sinned against. Let’s be ready to accept apologies. Regardless of your “side” on whatever particular “issue,” let’s avoid the payback mentality.
Thankfully, Jesus is on his throne and he loves all of us. Nothing will stop his perfect purposes for you, me, or anyone else in his family. That means no one can take away anything he thinks is best for you. Rest in his care (1 Pet 5:7). Follow his lead (Jn 1:43). And let’s stumble forward together.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Jedidiah Coppenger is the lead pastor of Redemption City Church in Franklin, TN. This article was initially posted at his blog and then again at Baptist 21. After reading it, I reached out to Jedidiah and asked if I could repost it here. So, it is reposted here with permission.
Exceptional thoughts! Thank you, Jedidiah.
Thanks, Steve!
Adam , a very sincere heartfelt message. I do not think there could be too much disagreement with your plea and appeal for thoughtful actions. I have come to this site and others to learn what is going on in the SBC as I am a layman and appreciate the various viewpoints presented here. I like the vast majority of SBC membership (lay people) was not aware too much of SBC leadership and issues as I thought SBC was basically there to facilitate our missions programs. I started looking into it as I came across a Washington Post article by Dr. Moore and started looking into the views. I was shocked and alarmed by the harsh partisan political tone set by Dr. Moore about the election. I will not get into the specifics as it has been covered . His hasty Ferguson Mo. judgments and general tone toward SBC members bothered me. What really has me upset is the lack of accountability and transparency at the SBC leadership lever especially the ERLC. The IMB went broke, how could that happen. As al long time SBC member supporting all the SBC activity I could I feel powerless and frustrated with the direction of the ERLC. I was stunned and still am that there salary, benefits and all financial benefits are not disclosed for the SBC leadership. Why? For the current disagreement with the ERLC and withholding of CP money I agree with the escrowing of the funds until there is some change in direction or accountability . The mosque issue and the presidential election are two issues that the ERLC did not have to get into in my opinion. Dr. Moore is now quite and not stirring the pot, so the pressure might have an influence. If he was a CEO of a major public held company he would be forced into resigning. I think the majority of SBC members would be more upset if they followed the events and situations unfolding. So I as a layman have no real input or say in SBC policies etc. and that has to be so as we have to trust our leadership. I fear as more information is out for general membership you will be seeing lay people as they use to say in East Germany, vote with their feet. There is one person who can calm the water by a gracious act and that is who?
Jed:
These are really good words and the key for the SBC in the days ahead.
Thanks for the encouragement, Louis!
An excellent post. I agree 1000%. We need unity. We need to preserve our system of mutual tolerance, so the CP stays intact. We need to be willing to forgive and forget since none of us are perfect.
At the same time, we also need to look at the way our agencies are functioning in the real world. I honestly don’t see why we need to continue to have an ERLC — at least not with its current focus . For the record, I happen to agree with Dr. Moore’s position relative to the stuff he said regarding Trump and/or Hilary. So, for me at least, he didn’t need to make an apology.
ERLC’s JOB IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE:
The job of the ERLC has been to reflect the views of the SBC at large to the public square outside the SBC — in government, academia, etc. Dr. Moore’s role in writing Op- ed’s for the New York Times is right on. The idea of lobbying the branches of the government in Washington has been the ERLC’s job. Filing amicus briefs are part of the purview of the ERLC. HOWEVER ANY VIEW THE ERLC PROMULGATES TO THE PUBLIC SQUARE MUST ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE VIEW OF THE SBC — not just the opinion of some subset of the SBC. I don’t think airing our grievances out in “public” is doing anyone any good.
NOT ERLC’s JOB: TEACHING THE PEOPLE; QUELCHING INTERNAL SQUABBLES IN THE SBC:
[a] Calling us guys in the pew to task is the job of the 42,000 pastors of the churches in the SBC. The ERLC should not be preempting what is coming from the pulpits of our churches.
[b] To the extent that pastors and/or other SBC leaders disagree on stuff they need to prayerfully bury the hatchet and work together. I don’t see the ERLC or any outside agency taking a role in brokering peace.
————————-
The ERLC [or at least the practical outworking of the ERLC as currently implemented] is out of sync with our church polity. Teaching and preaching in the SBC is bottoms up — not top down. When the rank and file are split into diametrically opposite camps on an issue how can the ERLC possibly enunciate what the “SBC view” is on the subject.
For the 99th time let me categorically state that the problem with the ERLC does not even inferentially reflect its current leadership. The problem is that times have changed. People are stressed out and desperate. They are more susceptible to the swan song of sweet talking politicians. The USA is splitting into two distinct economic classes. There is a sense of desperation by a growing underclass in the USA — including people who sit in our pews every Sunday.
We need to come along side people and help them. We need to help them out of poverty, and reach out to them when they are suffering from depression, suicide, zero self-worth, and addiction to prescription pain killers. In my opinion, this is more effective than chastising them because they are using “moral relativism” in the choice of a president who gives them hope for better future.
According to some polls 80% of the people in the pews of our SBC churches voted for Trump.
I say walk a mile in their shoes before you take a shot at them. Jesus didn’t endorse the sin that the woman at the well was doing. Instead he reached out to her from where she was and gently pointed her to a new life.
Autonomous SBC churches direct their giving as they feel so led by God—even if I may disagree with their designations.
This statement was true ten years ago as the GCR agenda was just developing. Churches were protesting the direction of the SBC by donating according to the dictates of their conscience. I disagreed with their designation, but not their right to do it.
Believe it or not, Jack Graham and Prestonwood are doing the exact same thing. They (or perhaps I should say “we” since I am sympathetic to their concerns) simply have a different set of priorities and agenda items considered to be important.
Unity, in this case, from my perspective, consists in affirming the right of Prestonwood (or anyone else) to express their displeasure with the current direction of the SBC.
Unity does not demand that you agree with Prestonwood’s decision, but only that you agree they have the right to do what they have done, and to express their heartfelt convictions without being insulted by others.
Rick: Can you honestly say God is guiding this in the area of who to rally for President? Are you saying the ERLC cannot say when wrongs are done? Cannot point out moral failings that have spiritual impact? Isn’t that more dictatorship by withdrawing monies, which they do have a right to do and I think God will provide the deficit, but is it really God leading here or partisan politics?
What are you talking about? I don’t know how God will guide in the area of SBC President in 2018 or US President in 2020. Are you saying this is a rally for picking the next President? Or are you talking about this past US Presidential election? (My opinion there is: “Sheesh, it’s over. Trump won. Everybody get over it.”)
It sounds like some people must think that Jack Graham is doing this because of Donald Trump. Graham disabused people of this notion with this tweet on February 21:
“To clarify – our decision to escrow our SBC funds for now is not and never has been about Trump. It is a leadership question.”
I understood Graham to mean SOUTHERN BAPTIST leadership, not partisan US politics. Basically, I believe Graham probably shares some of the same concerns I have written about regarding Southern Baptist life.
And yes, I believe God is guiding Dr. Graham just as certainly as I believe God is guiding me and others through Connect 316 to share not only our doctrinal views but also our ideas for improving the SBC.
I find it easy to believe Graham’s intentions are good because I believe the same thing about my own intentions.
How’s this as a motto for fostering SBC unity: “people of good intentions respecting other people of good intentions, even if they disagree on doctrine and strategy.”
Come on Rick Jack Graham clearly said that they were reevaluating because of Russell Moore’s positioning regarding Donald Trump… When he says now that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump and it’s only a leadership issue… He still talking about what happened with Donald Trump.
Russell Moore’s comments regarding Donald Trump is what precipitated this – plain and simple.
I still continue to ask if Russell Moore Had said exactly what he said about “SBC trump voters” about “SBC Clinton voters”… Would there be a problem?
If the honest answer to that is no – then there is no way you can separate Donald Trump from the issue.
I contend that the answer is clearly no – so this is not about what was said or the way that it was said as much as it is about the candidate it was spoken against.
Tarheel,
You are not quite listening to what we are saying. And you can continue to do this, if you want, and push the false narratives, but it will not be accurate, and it will not lead to unity.
The false narrative that the “Russell Moore” problem is all about Trump is just plain wrong. I believe Jack Graham when he makes this claim because it is also true for me. I disagree with what Moore said about TRUMP. I am even more concerned with what Moore said about ME. But these two matters, taken together, only scratch the surface of my concerns with Moore—explaining maybe 10%.
For the other 90%: http://bit.ly/2lXp4es
And my concerns with Moore explain only 10% of my concerns with the SBC as a whole. For me personally, not Jack Graham, I am MUCH more bothered by NAMB’s $125 million than the ERLC’s $4 million.
I see NAMB throwing their weight around and invading the space of other layers in SBC life, and I don’t like it:
(a) state conventions through partnership agreements favoring NAMB that MUST be signed or the state will lose their funding, and if the State Exec says no, he will be forced out, as in the case of Will McRaney in Maryland-Delaware,
(b) associations through required redefinition of DOM titles and job descriptions in the new work states, so that funding is cut off if they do not change the title to “Church Planting Catalyst” and change the job by removing the role of assisting pastors and replacing it with the requirement to start two new churches per year, and
(c) local churches through the dependency creating purchase of $62 million in housing for church planters, and even the NAMB purchase of local church buildings (the refugee hub church, for example) to be OWNED by our national entity.
All of this CENTRALIZATION bothers me, for this is simply not our traditional Baptist way, and at best, we are merely shifting the so-called “bloated bureaucracy” (which is truly nothing of the sort) from associations and state conventions to the national entities.
It may not be a stretch to say that this is about the GCR, the vision of our entities, the responsiveness of our trustees, and a myriad of other concerns. Did you hear Chuck Kelley’s sermon last year in the NOBTS Chapel?
“Is This a Great Commission Regression?” http://bit.ly/2l1cTNM
The Executive Committee formed a group this past week to look into these concerns. Good. Maybe the problems that have festered for some time can actually be addressed. In the aftermath of Prestonwood’s stewardship decision, I am more optimistic than I have been in years that SBC leaders may actually listen to the concerns so many people have expressed regarding the convention.
IF this listening takes place, there will be greater understanding, and at least the POSSIBILITY of resolving conflicts, rather than turning a deaf ear. If the conflicts are indeed resolved, then I believe this will pave the way for unity. I have long hoped for “Unity Through Transparency” rather than through issue avoidance. Prayerfully, such unity may soon come to pass.
I personally am not worried about the money, even such a large amount. Jack Graham has a right to withdraw it, I just think the reason is wrong. Very wrong. But I would hope the SBC doesn’t worry about the money either and without any coercion allows him to withdraw the money, trusting God will provide. Not bending to the reason.
If SBC leaders REALLY want unity they should try communicating more, especially with the people that are outside of their own echo chambers. Instead we get these pathetic please to be team players and be kind and be Christian and love one another while our opinions are not even sought and no dialogue is initiated. SBC LEADERS you are reaping what you have sown. Trustees have become ‘Yes Men’ to the entities they are supposed to hold accountable. Entity heads act like owners of their own company who can do whatever they want and say whatever they want and we just need to keep sending our money in and take it. The SBC needs a major downsizing! It has become WAY TOO BIG for its britches. I just do not know what it will take before SBC leaders understand they have a real problem and not just a bunch of ‘Billy Bob’ hicks making much to do about nothing. Moore is not the issue and firing him will not solve the problem. If you really want this problem solved COME TALK TO US!!!!!
Allen,
Who is “us”?
What precisely are the expectations of this group you call “us”?
Who do you expect to come sit down with this group you call “us”?
So many questions…
And no matter what they say Allen, your “us” twists and turns it into something that was never said or intended. Better for them to just ignore it.
Allen, You are right on. There is a tremendous disconnect between the SBC leadership and the lay members. As I have stated, when I started following ERLC actions after becoming aware of Dr. Moore’s articles and political views I was surprised. The ERLC really does serve no purpose other than giving its President and staff a forum for what they think is right and a “pass” to be on stage as spokesman. Too many meetings with like minded groups that serve no purpose, it is preaching to the choir. If they did not exist what would the negative impact be? I keep quiet at church and Bible study and only share my questioning online for now. I will soon have to approach my Pastor who fully supports CP and our church is a giving church, it is medium sized. I have hesitated to ask my Pastor his views as I know he fully supports mission giving and I truly do not believe his is aware of SBC leadership attitude, but I will see. Sum up SBC leadership is non transparent, out of touch and to top heavy.
Allen, why is anyone who disagrees with you automatically an out of touch elite? Almost all of the people who write and comment here are just average Joe Southern Baptists (or Pastor Billy Bob if you prefer).
GASP!
Average Joe!?
How insulting and elitist of you. 😉
Adam, The next Billy Graham might be high on weed right now and not in church since The Jeffersons and Good Times was in first runs on TV. Jamal and LaTisha might not agree with the elite pronouncements coming out of the ERLC or their Pastor Bishop G. Craver Washington if you prefer. I am not politically correct but common courtesy and common sense are still in play. Dr. Moore harsh description and insults at his membership for having different political views is just wrong. I think you do not have a racist or hatred thought in your head or in your bones, not in the least but the “average white SBC member” is open to descriptions and represented in a way that no other group would be subject too by our own leaders in many cases. We all know Billy Bob is not a compliment any more than redneck used by most writers. But it is possible we have gotten tone deaf as we stereotype certain people in a way we never would a protected minority.
Me thinks theology matters.
Sometimes what seems like one thing is actually something else.
All that is hidden will be exposed by the light, sooner or later.
I think Russell Moore and the ERLC have well represented us in the SBC. They have consistently addressed pro-life, pro-family issues, have called for moral character in political officials, have encouraged a compassionate concern for refugees and immigrants while acknowledging the importance of national security, and have sought to uphold the Baptist tradition of religious freedom. Other than point out the rather glaring inconsistency of those who eagerly advocated for Donald Trump, why would a conservative Southern Baptist have a problem with the ERLC? I think many in the SBC voted for Trump as the “lesser of two evils” with some reluctance. Perhaps I’m wrong. I’m not disappointed that Trump won, but I’m also grateful for the concerns Russell Moore addressed. If most of the SBC members are enthusiastic Trump supporters and they’re upset at Russell Moore because he articulated problems with then candidate Trump, then we have a much bigger spiritual problem than replacing Russell Moore or defunding the ERLC will solve.
BTW, Russell Moore’s book, Onward, is excellent and would be a great resource to take a group through before trying to get him fired. 🙂
Rick Patrick says, after recounting SBC complaints (Moore, centralization, but mostly NAMB): “I have long hoped for “Unity Through Transparency” rather than through issue avoidance. Prayerfully, such unity may soon come to pass.”
The complaint that reached critical mass with the XC was strictly Moore and ERLC, not a syllable about NAMB. Does Rick know something not reported? If so, let’s be transparent about it.
I could not have been more transparent. The section in which I enumerated my own personal concerns with NAMB was NOT the XC issue reaching critical mass, as you say, nor was it the issue that Prestonwood shared.
I made that fact perfectly clear by introducing the new topic as my own opinion thusly:
“And my concerns with Moore explain only 10% of my concerns with the SBC as a whole. For me personally, not Jack Graham, I am MUCH more bothered by NAMB’s $125 million than the ERLC’s $4 million.”
I just think it is way too narrow to view this as only a Moore thing, and way, way too narrow to view it as a Trump thing.
I am just a lay member of an SBC church. But I do listen to the sermons, attend Sunday School and Wednesday Bible study. I do participate in out reach ministries. When I discuss ERLC positions with my brothers and sisters — or — they come up in out reach – people can not believe that they are from the SBC!
Perhaps the way to resolve the issues (please note that is plural) can be found in the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. Perhaps Acts 17:11 would be a good place to start:
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
When I have tried to apply this Biblical concept on the ERLC issues, all I can say is that the ERLC comes up short. In multiple forums have asked for Biblical justifications. I want to thank Stephen on this forum for supplying one – but just did not see the direct application to the mosque issue. But on the other issues Biblical justifications have not been forthcoming.
I am pleased that the EC is going to look into this matter. If the ERLC is pursing and following man’s doctrine then changes are needed, the sooner the better.
Mike, excuse my unawareness of what you may have mentioned specifically elsewhere, but what issues do you feel the ERLC has taken that are wrong? The ERLC has been strongly pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, has called for compassionate treatment of refugees and immigrants while acknowledging the need for national security, has stood up for the historic Baptist conviction of religious freedom and called for moral character for our political leaders. Russell Moore’s book “Onward” is an excellent resource for thinking biblically about a host of issues from a conservative Christian perspective. As an SBC pastor I haven’t found the ERLC out of step in significant ways on any basic issue. If this is about the amicus brief, I think that the critics of the brief are mistaken. But even if the critics have a point, the reaction against the ERLC is rather extreme. The intention of the brief and the ERLC was to protect religious freedom for all, not to directly promote Islam. I can see how someone could disagree with involvement with the brief, but this hardly justifies the firestorm of that has ensued. I believe in supporting religious freedom even for people I strongly disagree with. Muslims should have the freedom to build mosques, Jews the freedom to build synagogues, and Christians the right to build churches, etc. I also believe in the right to call Islam a false religion and to seek to persuade people not to follow its teachings but instead to trust in Jesus as the one true Savior and Lord. Baptists learned the hard way facing persecution from other professing Christians in Europe and in colonial America. Religious freedom for everyone isn’t promoting the beliefs of other groups; its standing for the principle that government shouldn’t be used to coerce or promote one religion over another. This is worth defending. Of course the gospel doesn’t depend on religious freedom, but it has been a gracious gift of God for our nation and the ERLC is to be commended, not condemned, for standing up for it.
I cannot speak for Mike, but I believe I have read as much literature as anyone regarding the concerns that Southern Baptists and others have raised with Russell Moore’s leadership at the ERLC.
If you REALLY want to know, then I can point you to a digest of THIRTY essays, organized chronologically, with links to the original articles.
The thirty abstracts consist of about 5,000 words, but the original articles may consist of another 25,000.
Sometimes I hear people ask, “What’s your problem with the ERLC?” They seem to want an oversimplified twenty word answer that they can shoot down before insulting you for having such reservations.
Again, if you REALLY want to know, I have put quite a bit of effort into answering the question.
http://bit.ly/2lc0vc4
Steve, apologize for the delay in responding. I will give a partial list of questions I have about ERLC (thus Mr. Moore) statements or lack of thereof. Please note some of these date back sometime and are primarily a request for a Biblical justification. As Acts 17:11 commands us to test what we hear daily.
1) On mosque issue, exactly how did we determine that it was NOT a permitting issue? Did our local SBC church less than 2 miles away request or support the brief? If such a brief is required to support religious liberty where are the other six? The Obama DOJ filed seven such lawsuits (all Islamic related). What made this particular one of such important and the other six not worthy of support? Was it because this one was during the campaign? Think about that a minute. Does the exclusion for “contrary to will of God” in Faith and Message article 17 apply? I find Scripture again false gods and high places to false gods. I find no Scripture about supporting such.
2) On immigration, has the ERLC (and Mr. Moore) quoted various Old Testament passages such as Deuteronomy 10:18-19 improperly? KJV “stranger” is “ger” in Hebrew and is not a foreigner that is a guest? This is consistent with the Israelites being in Egypt with the permission of the second highest official – not illegally.
3) Where in the Bible is Jesus a migrant?
4) I have great concern about current (and previous term under Richard Land) ERLC statements on candidate evaluation. There is Scripture on qualifications for both magistrate and judges. When is the ERLC going to present such instead of personal opinions which are man’s doctrine not the Lord’s? A comparison of the two candidates this year based upon Biblical qualifications would have exposed Mr. Trump’s issues but to a greater extent would shown many more with Mrs. Clinton. Once again Scripture should be our guide. In Romans 13:6 the word translated “minister” (KJV) is leitourgos – has not Mr. Trump met or come close to meeting such a requirement?
5) On this same subject Mr. Trump in primaries, in nomination speech, in campaign and as President has stated he will repeal the Johnson Amendment to the IRS code. This was the national norm from Colonial days through 1954. Why has ERLC been silent?
6) Why has ERLC been silent on US Security Council Resolution 2334? This tends to diminish Jewish/Christian historical claims to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. It provides another means for Islamic claims that Mohammed had a midnight trip to the Temple Mount guided by the angel Gabriel where Jesus was just a prophet.
7) Why has the ERLC remained silent about Eric Walsh, the lay preacher who was fired by the State of Georgia for the content of his sermons while NOT AT WORK? This is a true religious liberty issue.
The list above is both questions concerning Scripture justification and questions about what to me appear to be a lack of performance. I was given a Biblical justification on “religious liberty” by Stephen in this forum but did not see its relevance to the mosque brief.
Thank you for asking.
Rick, thanks for your response. I read through the list you provided. Frankly I’m stunned by the how off-base the criticism of Moore really is. He’s not a postmillennialist; he’s a historic premill. I find most of what he has said to be conservative and reasonable. After looking at what you’ve assembled, I’m more supportive of Moore than before. The passionate support for Trump by Moore’s critics, the embrace of Judge Roy Moore, and the racial perspective of some of the critics is certainly troubling to me as a political conservative and a Christian. These articles feel more like alt-right populism rather than classical conservatism.
Steve, the above comments highlight why the ERLC and Dr. Moore are not needed and have become a negative to the SBC. I have posted several comments here stating my views as a layman who really is appalled by DR. Moore and his leadership of the ERLC. If you would be so kind to read them and perhaps give me some other perspective that I have missed that you see. I do not question Dr. Moore’s faith or his religious views. It is his foray into politics and social matters that I oppose. Again I will restate as they are in my previous comments. Why would we have any question or interest in whether you are a “classic” conservative, a liberal or what your political views are. It comes up because Dr. Moore made it a big , big major issue
with his anti Trump assault on Trump and his supporters in the political arena. Dr. Moore used his SBC position to advance his political agenda. This has been covered in great detail. Your last sentence is indicative of what Dr. Moore got us into, I, by implication have been labeled an alt-right (new buzzword), whatever that is, by you as I agreed with many of the articles about Dr. Moore . It has nothing to do to advance the mission of the SBC. I will state if the majority of SBC members knew Dr. Moore’s political and social views and his opinion of them there would be a lot more upheaval. Most do not follow events and are trusting of their leaders.
Eric, the ERLC has done valuable work in standing for pro-life, pro-family, and pro-religious liberty causes. Russell Moore has called for the important consideration of moral character in elected officials and he has pointed out the inconsistency of those who enthusiastically endorsed Donald Trump. I think he was right to do so. I don’t agree with everything he’s said or done, but he has been a helpful voice in my opinion. I think he’s been “moore” right than wrong on most issues and I accept his apology for offending people with some of his statements during the election. The ERLC does value work providing information to Southern Baptists as well as addressing concerns for Southern Baptists. You may be right that many in our churches wouldn’t agree with everything he’s said (especially if informed in articles written in a biased way against him). But there was a time that many in our churches bought into a racism that was endemic in the southern culture. Thankfully there were a few voices that called for a more biblical and Christian perspective, even though they may not have held the majority view on every issue. Whether Russell Moore keeps his job or not, it may be that we will one day look back (if the Lord tarries)on where he stood on issues like race, refugees, and the moral character of political candidates with a kinder appreciation.
Steve,
How you got THAT out of reading those thirty essays is beyond me. This is what I heard…because I was truly listening:
*Soft support (or no real support) for Israel
*Moral communitarian philosophy
*The Gospel Coalition Hiring over Southern Baptist hiring
*Attributing officer violence to cigarettes rather than arrest resistance
*Criticism of a Grand Jury’s verdict, saying it is not Romans 13 justice
*Pawn of race-baiting activists setting back race relations in America
*Weak support for brave, hard working officers, most of whom are fair
*Weak (no) support for Roy Moore, Kelvin Cochran, Kim Davis, etc.
*Biased punditry exalting Rubio over Cruz and Trump
*ERLC Candidate Forum snub with room for Clinton but not Cruz or Huckabee
*Referring to the Bible Belt’s “almost Christianity”
*Sharing an assertion that gay marriage is “rooted in love”
*Dismissive attitude toward homosexual reparative therapy
*Infamously acerbic sub-tweeting rant during Trump’s Liberty University speech
*Equating Trump supporters with those passively permitting racial atrocities
*Suggesting Trump supporters were endorsing nativism and bigotry
*Suggesting Trump supporters opposed ethnically diverse churches
*Suggesting Trump supporters were not on the “right side of Jesus”
*Seething enmity toward White American Christians in the Bible Belt
*Moore regularly reminded an associate that he (Moore) was a Democrat
*Current ERLC positions in opposition to those of the Conservative Resurgence
*ERLC serves up pronouncements flying in the face of Southern Baptists
*ERLC leadership feels Southern Baptists are intellectually inferior
*Disdain of the Religious Right while completely overlooking the Religious Left
*Overlooking the horrible tragedy of the Black Lives Matter Protest in Dallas
*Mike Huckabee is stunned Southern Baptists are paying Moore to insult them
*Moore’s prior employment with a Democratic Congressman
*Moore’s reference to Jesus as an “illegal immigrant”
*Moore’s endorsement of gay wedding reception attendance
*Fanning racial tensions after the Ferguson Grand Jury verdict
*Passing judgment on Garner case before justice system even reviewed evidence
*Appointment of Karen Swallow Prior despite questionable abortion statements
*Turning ERLC into Marco Rubio Political Action Committee
*Insulting view of Trump supporters not the mark of a prophet, but of a jerk
*Enabling attitude among the ERLC Trustees unwilling to listen to concerns
*Moore’s admiration for Foy Valentine, a left-leaning promoter of abortion
*Opposition to “Lesser of Two Evil” arguments rebutted by William Lane Craig
*Rants against Trump reminiscent of Dana Carvey’s Church Lady moralism
*Demagoguery of “Trump Baptist Convention Lynch Mob” rhetoric exposed
*Claim that Trump supporters are following the “dangerous prosperity gospel”
*Oft-repeated claim that Moore is a prophet debunked, as he is truly a pundit
*Moore claimed fellow Christians must have “repudiated all their beliefs”
*Moore’s inability to articulate what Christian voters SHOULD do in the election
*Moore’s sanctimonious attitude toward Trump supporters
*Claiming “Make America Great Again” was pent-up nativism and bigotry
*Post-election thoughts show a disconnect with the charges he leveled
*Moore supported the Muslims in New Jersey more than the Jews in Israel
*Moore ignores the “exceptionally caustic tone” he took during the campaign
*Moore called Trump’s campaign “reality TV moral sewage”
*Moore now has less access to the POTUS than any similar SBC lobbyist ever
*The President considers Moore to be a “terrible representative for evangelicals”
*The leader of the free world considers him a “nasty guy with no heart”
*Moore started upsetting conservatives YEARS ago
*Moore caricatured and discredited the Religious Right
*Moore chastises conservatives for engaging in politics while doing it himself
*Moore views homosexuality differently than most Southern Baptists
*Moore refused to invite Southern Baptist (!) political candidates to a forum
*While criticizing Trump, Moore had very, very, very little to say about Clinton
*Moore perverts the classic Christian worldview and panders to the left
*Moore urges us to disengage from culture wars while the other side still fights
*Moore is rebranding the ERLC and the tone of evangelical political speech
*Moore welcomes confusing partners like LGBTQ activists to public forums
*Moore misidentifies his victims, insulting the Christian Right
*Moore has the wrong talking points, the wrong language and the wrong allies
*Moore was incensed when Trump suspended a refugee program for 3 months
*Moore said nothing when Obama suspended a refugee program for 6 months
*Moore spoke up against the “Old School Religious Right Establishment”
*The preceding label is insulting to most of the people paying Moore’s salary
*Moore called Trump’s evangelical base “doctrinally vacuous”
*He accused them of drunkenness, saying they “may well be drunk right now”
*He said they “hadn’t been to church since Seinfeld was in first-run episodes”
*After insulting Southern Baptists, Moore may no longer be able to work with us
*After insulting Trump, Moore may no longer be able to represent us before him
Rick Patrick, you have summed it up perfectly for me. There is nothing I can add to your summation. As a layman who became aware of Dr. Moore’s view by the secular press I was and am shocked at his viewpoints that you summed up so well. This led me to discover and become alarmed at the lack of transparency and accountability at the SBC executive level. I see that the SBC leaders propose a 2.8% annual raise this year , 2.8% of what? I cannot believe the salary and total benefit packages are not public information for the SBC. Why? The IMB went broke, most lay members do not know this. The alliances with so many non SBC organizations who share a common outlook not common in the SBC. You did forget to add that after all the uproar Dr. Moore hired a very hard Never Trumper who got fired from the TN. GOP for being so hard line Never Trump and placed him into a new position in the ERLC. Of course we do not know his pay and benefits either. If Hilary Clinton had won would Moore be so conciliatory and apologetic as he is now? Dr. Moore is at heart a politician with an agenda. The SBC does not need the ERLC as it serves no useful purpose. Thank you Rick Patrick for verbalizing so well the views of a lot of us.
It is very difficult for me to imagine that any Christian would given an ounce of credibility to the statement :
“nasty guy with no heart”
from DJT, quite likely the most immoral candidate to ever run as a Republican, and certainly in the running as the most immoral candidate ever to run. Are we so desperate for a seat at the table that we’ll use this statement as a reason to get rid of Moore? Perhaps you think we would be better served by a Trump sycophant like Falwell, who said even if Trump were guilty of sexual assault he would still support him.
We can boil this list down to three things, the three things most opposed by self-proclaimed traditionalists: Calvinism, non-Culture-warriorism, and never-Trumpism.
Trad’s rabid opposition to Moore would be much more credible if it weren’t laid alongside their blind loyalty to someone like Ergun Caner.
Rick, many of these articles misrepresent Russell Moore, are incredibly biased, and attack him for things unfairly. I don’t have time to go through the whole op-research file, but a few examples I saw. The article by Rick White on Moore’s views of the kingdom call him post-millennial. This is incorrect. Moore has written extensively on the kingdom of God and eschatology in his books, “The Kingdom of Christ” and “Onward.” He presents a pretty standard evangelical perspective following Carl Henry and others. I think White really misconstrues Moore on this. If you want to know what Moore believes, read those books not someone’s unbalanced review of them.
Moore is attacked because he worked for a Democrat congressman who supported Nancy Pelosi. Gene Taylor (who is now a Republican) was a very conservative pro-life Democrat when Moore worked for him in the early 1990s. Taylor didn’t support Pelosi as speaker until years after Moore was working for him. This is a guilt by association argument and is unfair.
Moore joined with many evangelicals in raising concerns about Trump’s controversial travel ban, and he is criticized for not addressing Obama’s travel ban earlier. But few people were aware of Obama’s actions, because the media was uninterested in covering such things when he was president; Trump’s ban was all over the news. Maybe he should have known about Obama’s temporary ban and addressed it, but his statement raising concerns about refugees was responsible and balanced.
He is criticized for pointing out many of Trump’s questionable statements about race and immigrants, yet many of those statement by Trump were outrageous and deserved questioning.
He is criticized because the President attacked him and won’t give him access the White House as a lobbyist (!). Well, to be attacked by Trump who spent a whole campaign saying vicious and often untrue things about his opponents make his comments about Moore a badge of honor more than a reason to fire him.
Moore is demeaned for involvement in forums and presentations with people Christians are often in disagreement with as if he agrees with them (when he doesn’t).
He is criticized for appreciating some of what Foy Valentine did in addressing race relations. Moore did not agree with him on his faulty views on abortion.
He is attacked because he noted that some Trump supporters were into the dangerous prosperity gospel (Paula White, anyone?).
He said Jesus was an “illegal immigrant.” Ok, I’ll give you that one. He should have said “refugee.”
Moore is attacked because he didn’t support all the tactics of Judge Roy Moore or Kim Davis; but there is room for legitimate differences in how these folks chose to take their stands. Russell Moore wasn’t agreeing with gay marriage.
Many of the articles are someone’s opinion of what Moore said or meant and are expressed with bias and malice.
I don’t agree with everything Russell Moore has said or the way he has said it. But after reading through the vitriol and one-sided attacks in these articles it makes me appreciate him all the more.
Rick, you can have your own opinion, but you don’t get your own facts. Most of that list bears false witness against a brother in Christ. You can stop posting this garbage or risk losing the privilege of commenting here.
Steve–yep, there’d be a whole lot less misinformation about Moore if people would actually listen to what he says and read what he writes instead of listening to a bunch of agenda-driven anti-Moore folk.
A few additions to the list above:
1) Failed to inform SBC churches and membership about the Johnson Amendment repeal commitment. Both during the primaries, after nomination and even now after election. If this provision is repealed it will impact to some extent almost every church in the country.
2) Failure to provide visible support for Eric Walsh. A lay preacher who was fired for the content on his sermons while NOT AT WORK. This is a true issue of religious liberty.
3) Failure to issue statement on US Security Council Resolution 2334.
4) If the brief filed in support of the mosque (I call it a high place to a false god) was mandated by SBC support of religious liberty then where are the other six? The Obama DOJ filed seven (including Basking Ridge) lawsuits to promote the false god.
On the issue of immigration is misusing verses which contain the Hebrew word “ger” which would be a foreigner in country as a guest.
Mike, based on his preferred links is another reconstructionist, theocrat, or some variety thereof. Not much sense in discussion about ERLC with these. The ERLC is bound by their mission assignment to defend religious liberty.
Rick Patrick merely dislikes what Moore has said and done. He doesn’t believe the historic concept of religious liberty should be scrapped.
William Thornton said
Mike, based on his preferred links is another reconstructionist, theocrat, or some variety thereof. Not much sense in discussion about ERLC with these. The ERLC is bound by their mission assignment to defend religious liberty.
If that was directed at my four items I am pretty disappointed. How someone can be called a “reconstructionist, theocrat, or some variety thereof.” for asking questions about performance issues that seem to have real impact on the SBC is beyond me.
Perhaps I was unclear:
1) The Johnson Amendment to the IRS code — if repealed — would effect virtually every church in the country. If you or others do not see the potential impact – isn’t that part of the ERLC responsibilities – to present information? For all of the pastors on this list – are you prepared for this potential change or what to tell your congregation? It was the norm from Colonial periods until 1954.
2) Eric Walsh was hired as a doctor in the Georgia State Health Department. After sending him his employment offer which he accepted, a democratic and LBGT activist complained about his sermons as a lay pastor ON HIS OWN TIME. After the HR Department listened to six sermons they fired him. Now that is a religious liberty issue, why has the ERLC remained silent? How many SBC churches have bi-vocational pastors and what is the impact if pleasing democratic and LGBT activists becomes a requirement for employment?
3) The UN Security Council Resolution 2334 furthered the false Islamic claim that there are no Jewish ties to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Instead it is being used to tout the midnight trip of Mohammad which denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ. I submitted a guest blog on this subject, but it not chosen for posting.
4) On the mosque brief filing. This is presented as had to be done to comply with Baptist Faith and Message article on religious liberty. But that article excludes anything “contrary to the will of God”. But to those who claim it would be a failure to not file a brief in support of these Islam issues, why were you silent on the other six that the Obama DOJ filed lawsuits on? Why was this one issue relevant? Think about it. Also has anyone contacted our local SBC church to see if they favored filing the brief?
Now which or all of these questions are not valid? Being called names for asking questions presents an image that the ERLC and thus Russell Moore’s positions can not be defended with either Biblical or moral statements.
If you reply was not directed at my list of issues, I apologize for misreading.
OK William. I am no re constructionist, theocrat, or whatever pejorative you want to dish out to minimize folks and their concerns. I will replicate Mike’s list. Perhaps you wish to deal substantively with them with me knowing I am not one of those “expletive deleted” – and quite frankly every one of Mike’s list have to deal with Ethics and Religious Liberty – so go at it:
1) Failed to inform SBC churches and membership about the Johnson Amendment repeal commitment. Both during the primaries, after nomination and even now after election. If this provision is repealed it will impact to some extent almost every church in the country.
2) Failure to provide visible support for Eric Walsh. A lay preacher who was fired for the content on his sermons while NOT AT WORK. This is a true issue of religious liberty.
3) Failure to issue statement on US Security Council Resolution 2334.
4) If the brief filed in support of the mosque (I call it a high place to a false god) was mandated by SBC support of religious liberty then where are the other six? The Obama DOJ filed seven (including Basking Ridge) lawsuits to promote the false god.
Rob
The terms are descriptive not perjorative. Maybe we could have more clarity on his positions but you could tackle the questions if you wish.
I have noticed that no one has attempted to answer the questions about lack of ERLC performance on the issues I listed. They are valid questions.
Apprently questions about the ERLC performance of its duties, Biblical justification and moral basis can only be answered by silence or implying that questioning ERLC is part of some agenda. Mr Moore should be providing these answers …
Rob, Mike, I can’t comment on these 4 points from the standpoint of the ERLC, but I’d like to comment on them anyway.
1) I favor the repeal of the Johnson Amendment and a return to “the norm from Colonial periods until 1954.” We are interested in teaching the Bible and not interested in endorsing candidates. BUT, whether or not we do so is a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and should be none of the government’s concern. Nevertheless, this one is not so high on my priority list because it is an issue of “can’t do it and remain tax exempt” rather than “can’t do it.” In our church we are going to speak to the issues we wish to speak to and if it should come to losing a tax exemption, then so be it.
2) As a bi-vocational minister, I find the Eric Walsh situation much more concerning. Not only was he fired for the content on his sermons while NOT AT WORK, in the legal proceeding the state’s attorney general ordered Walsh to turn over his sermon notes or transcripts. Haven’t heard anything more about this recently.
3) I disagree with UNSC 2334 as well as the United States abstention in the vote concerning it, but I haven’t previously thought much about this as a religious liberty issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334.pdf
4) In principle, I don’t see why supporting religious liberty (or whatever, if you call it something else) in one case necessarily require amicus briefs be filed in every similar case. And perhaps they were not similar at all. I am not familiar with the other six instances to which you refer. Also, if it is wrong in principle to file an amicus brief “to promote the false god” of Islam, would it also be wrong to file an amicus brief in the Eric Walsh case “to promote the false god” of Adventism?
Thanks.
Robert,
I don’t think they are saying that the UN resolution is a freedom of liberty issue, but rather a failing by Dr. Moore., in that he should have informed SBCers about it: that is the USA abstaining from voting on it.
Throw mud at the wall, hoping some sticks, I guess.
Parsonmike, I can assure you I have not been intentionally throwing mud at the wall in the hopes that something sticks. I do apologize if the purpose was not clear, I tried to label them as “asking questions about performance issues that seem to have real impact on the SBC”.
From my experience and perspective the only reason that the ERLC is of concern is that all to often its President is the public face of the SBC. This was true also for Richard Land. Large number of people see the ERLC actions as what the SBC is. The ERLC seems to get more secular news coverage than the rest of the SBC.
If this is an unintended consequence then perhaps it should be corrected. But that is way above my pay grade.
The issue on the UN Resolution is a performance issue. Although where ever the Islamic message that it assisted becomes dominant there will be no religious liberty. I do not see what I would call an effort by the ERLC to present a public policy that exposes the falsehoods of Islam concerning Jesus and the Biblical implications of Israel.
I am a lay person but I participate in a multi church benevolence effort, two food ministries and a weekly recovery ministry, all Biblically based. I have heard comments from those who need the Lord about how the SBC is building mosques, is anti-Israel and hates southern people — and is becoming politically correct.
So am not throwing mud, am simply reporting and addressing concerns that come up at times from my own life.
Jedidiah, I want to apologize to you. You wrote a wonderful article about prayer and unity and I have found myself engaged in a bitter back and forth about Russell Moore and ERLC. I am sorry. I am part of the problem and I regret that. May your original point be more important than anything I have written here.
It blows my mind that most of the discussion relative to the ERLC on this thread is giving an appraisal of Dr. Moore. I guess I’m the only guy on this planet that holds to the view that even if Dr. Moore is correct on every thing he has ever said that this does not equate to the conclusion that the ERLC needs to exist.
If the ERLC did not exist then Dr. Moore would not have a platform and this whole argument would not be going on.
My path forward:
(a) Shut down the ERLC.
(b) Then hard core protagonists and antagonists of Dr. Moore can make their points. While that argument is going on I’ll go out and watch the grass grow. That would be of more interest to me.
The ERLC is expendable. It has to go. The SBC is deeply divided right now. We don’t deserve to have an ERLC because there is no way that any person — not even Dr. Moore — could possibly represent our view to the public square.
Once the SBC cleans up its act then we can decide what, if any, lobbying group we want or need. Last time I checked we have 50,000 pastors and dozens of seminary profs etc. so we shouldn’t have to setup some unique organization to represent us. I believe the locus of our shared vision should be bottoms up — not top down. Implicit with the ERLC is that some guy is up at the top speaking ex-cathedra. This is out of sync with the SBC.
I don’t think it is necessary to outsource our need for some type of hatchet burial to the ERLC. After all, we are all adults here.
But the existence (or non-existence) of the ERLC is not a hill to die on. So I’ll try to temper my thoughts and not burn any bridges.
Notice I’m not taking a position which implies some support or lack of support for any person. I think this discussion makes more sense if it stays separate from giving someone a public evaluation of their job performance.
Roger OKC
Roger,
Not everything is as it seems.
Many of those upset with Dr. Moore have an agenda that is deeper than the ERLC problem.
Thus getting rid of the ERLC will not solve the divisiveness.
Parson Mike:
Yes, Parson Mike you are probably right. Anyone who reads the comments on this thread can see that there are definitely some that are upset with Dr. Moore. The question is, “Isn’t it true that those who are staging an anti-Dr. Moore-crusade are only doing so because he is currently the leader of some agency of the SBC?”
I believe the answer to the question is YES.
If the ERLC were to be abolished tomorrow then those who have a vendetta against Dr. Moore would likely ratchet down their protest. The fact that the ERLC exists and Dr. Moore is the head of is why any of us are even talking about this whole subject right now. The existence of the ERLC gives those who are against Dr. Moore a megaphone that wouldn’t otherwise exist.
Lets say that Dr. Moore just resigned and became a Buddhist Monk. Lets say that he entered a monastery in Tibet. Don’t you think that most anti Moore crusaders around here would put away their weapons? If so, then you have to acknowledge that Dr. Moore is only in the spotlight because he happens to be running the ERLC. That is one reason that I am calling for the elimination of the ERLC.
The other reason is that the ERLC is totally unnecessary regardless of who is running it. It just serves as a sounding board to amplify pre-existing divisions in the SBC.
Things in the SBC are so poisoned that even though Dr. Moore has issued an apology people aren’t buying it.
My niece always says, “It takes two to tango”. People can’t stage a fight if their enemies have left the arena.
I’ll stipulate that there will probably be some in the SBC family that will still be protesting no matter what happens with Dr. Moore and/or the ERLC.
There was a big fight within the Trustees of the IMB back in the 2009 timeframe. They key combatants on both sides of the fight left [or were kicked out — I don’t know to this day exactly what happened]. There have been issues in the IMB such as reckless spending for years that the IMB has had to tackle.
But at least there have not been rancorous divisions between warring camps on the board. If you remove the combatants the fight stops.
This will be my last comment on SBC Voices regarding Dr. Moore and/or the ERLC. As far as I can discern I’m the only guy who is calling for the ERLC’s elimination. Either I’m doing a terrible job communicating my point or my idea is bankrupt. Either way I’m going to quit pushing water uphill. I’m going to shift my energies to working behind the scene to effect change.
I support Dr. Moore 101%. I accept his apology. Dr. Moore will land someplace in a job where he will be able have a platform to express his views. Hopefully he will be in a context which is devoid of splintering and division.
Roger OKC
Roger, it’s not just about Dr. Moore. Dr. Moore is the current target because he is the “easy” one. The real issue is there is a small subset of persons with in our denomination (some are posting here) who will perhaps be contented – maybe not even then – when there are absolutely no persons holding to any version of reformed theology in any position of leadership within the southern Baptist convention. It’s a crusade this subset is on.
This same small subset of people have doggedly and equally undeservingly attacked Dr. Platt, Dr. Mohler and now we’re getting hints that Dr. Ezell is next… but they, thus far, being unable to get the spaghetti they’re slinging to stick to the wall – so they are Focusing lots of energy on Russell Moore who spoke out against Donald Trump and defended universal religious liberty and therefore has, in their mind made him red meat and fruit ready for the picking.
If this small subset is able to extract their pound of flesh in the person of Dr. Moore – it will continue and get worse – with what they will perceive to be the wind at their back.
Roger,
Timing is everything – I’ve said several times that I would be open to discussing whether or not the ethics and religious liberty commission should continue to exist – especially as a cooperative program funded entity – BUT – there’s no way that that should be entertained in the midst of this witchhunt that is taking place – to do so would, imo, make matters worse.
“Don’t you think that most anti Moore crusaders around here would put away their weapons”
Roger: You have been around long enough to know the answer would be no. They would just go on to the next thing to fight about. It could be about anything. The fighting with them has not stopped since the CR movement. It’s been one thing after another. And they tend to fight dirtier than most as has been seen just on this forum, but on their sites. The end justifies the means so there is no moral compass as to how low to go.
Tarheel wrote: “The real issue is there is a small subset of persons… who will perhaps be contented – maybe not even then – when there are absolutely no persons holding to any version of reformed theology in any position of leadership within the southern Baptist convention. It’s a crusade this subset is on.”
While Tarheel did not name this “subset,” because I frequently opine both here and elsewhere, I am somewhat concerned that people might assume he is talking about me.
I am not “charging Tarheel” with anything or “making any accusations.” I am merely trying to clarify a POSSIBLE misunderstanding that might stem from his undefined subset.
On MORE OCCASIONS THAN I CAN COUNT, I have clarified that I absolutely do not seek the removal of all Calvinists from the SBC. People jump to that conclusion because I am vocal in my disagreement not only with Calvinism, but especially with an overemphasis among SBC leaders of ministry strategies and practices logically stemming from it.
All of which is to say that I want Calvinists to be PROPERLY and PROPORTIONALLY represented in SBC life. If 20% of our Pastors and churches embrace Calvinism, then I truly prefer for TWO of our TEN theologically-driven entities to be filled by Calvinists. (I do not consider Guidestone doctrinally relevant, since money is soteriologically neutral.)
Rick, there’s a very clear reason why you feel people may think Tarheel’s comments were about you.
I’m not going to say anything about Moore and/or the ERLC. I promised I’d drop that subject.
I think Dr. Dockery made the best case I’ve heard about how Calvinists and “non-Calvinists” can co-exist. The friendly debate between Dr. Patterson and Dr. Mohler was another high water mark in communication between these two viewpoints. It is not etched in stone that there has to be an eternal squabble about “Calvinism” [I put that in quotes].
My two volume set of Institutes [edition in English edited by McNeill] are setting on the shelf. I guess I better read up a little. As it is, I’m such a terrible theologian that I can’t weigh the relevance of the argumentation on either side. For me I can hold “in tension” certain stuff.
My salvation doesn’t depend on decoding the maze of Calvinism — one way or another. It seems strange that some camp of guys would hold the SBC hostage to some particular soteriological view. I might have to wade through a few ThD theses on ordo salutus just to be able to keep up.
Maybe this so-called argument regarding Calvinism is just a proxy war that is being waged. The real issue could be something else besides theology.
Roger OKC
Someone said they hoped Moore would “land in a place free from splinters and division.” I say Moore would not be happy in a place without splintering and division….. that, based on his track record, is job 1.
Charley, that’s ridiculous. Stick to the issues. Leave out the character attacks.
Robert Vaughn, thank you. I also am a member of a church under a bi-vocational Pastor.
In your reply on the Johnson Amendment you said “Nevertheless, this one is not so high on my priority list because it is an issue of “can’t do it and remain tax exempt” rather than “can’t do it.”
This is precisely why I believe it is important to understand what this issue is. If the Johnson Amendment is repealed there will be no threat to being tax exempt. From Colonial Times until 1954 the pulpit was free to speak on issues and candidates without restriction — and did. It was Lyndon Johnson who pushed the “Johnson Amendment” to IRS code in 1954 to silence churches which had strongly opposed him. The pulpit was so instrumental in the Colonial period it was dubbed the black robed regiment. Seems to be that since 1954 the tax benefit has become more important than Acts 5:29. But am I wrong in believing that presenting the Biblical issues on a possible repeal to the SBC churches should be a priority for the ERLC? Possibly more important than an Islamic mosque?
Adventism believes in the Trinity. There is unsound Doctrine but certainly not a false god. In Baptist Faith and Message article 17, “God” is referenced directly. Not Allah, Budda, and so on. If I am not mistaken Adrian Rodgers was the chairman of the committee that drafted the current version and I know what he meant when it says “God”. I just simply question why we (SBC through ERLC) are taking time to place equal status in any manner on false gods? But at the same time missing opportunities to present Biblical guidance in areas that would catch the attention of many.
On Eric Walsh, the demand to notes and transcripts by Georgia’s Attorney General was rescinded. But the case continues and there is a religious liberty bill in the State Senate as the Legislature is in session. Last year Governor Deal vetoed a religious liberty bill.
Anyway, thank you for replying and hope that some take notice. The ERLC has been asleep at the wheel (my terms and opinion) pursuing a personal agenda.
You’re welcome.
Mike, I don’t disagree with you on the Johnson Amendment, just saying it’s not as high a priority to me as some other things. There are in fact quite a few churches in the U.S. that are involved in politics in various ways, and I’m not aware that any of them have lost their tax exempt status. So, if we can get it repealed, great, but I just think there are many more burning issues than this one. I am not defending any ERLC inaction, if that is the case, just explaining my viewpoint.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on the Adventists. I used the “false God of Adventism” just to make a parallel point to how you had stated the “false God of Islam.” Bottom line is that I consider their view of salvation heretical and don’t see that eternally it will make much difference whether you go to Hell as an Adventist or as a Muslim. So in that sense I think defending Eric Walsh is a matter of defending religious freedom, not that I find his theology in any way agreeable. But, again, I believe the issue itself is a very important one, and hope it has an outcome in favor of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Thanks for the update with what happened on the sermon notes issue. I’m hoping someday someone will ask for mine so I can laugh at them. 🙂
Robert, thanks for the reply. I do not think that it matters what priority either of us would apply to the repeal of the Johnson Amendment. If it is repealed, it is a major change that will affect virtually every church in the country. I am very disappointed that the ERLC is ignoring the issue – which it seems to me would be part of their duty to inform SBC churches of such policy issues.
By the way, the State of Georgia made a $225,000.00 out of court settlement with Eric Walsh recently. The sermons I listened to were about the flood and Biblical marriage which are the issues he was fired for. He was fired mostly due to LGBT activists. Have you ever preached a sermon on Biblical marriage? Of course, so I do believe it was a case of religious liberty.
I do not disagree with you on Adventists doctrine and the same statement could made about other denominations. But using the Baptist Faith and Message as a guide it references God, and does include the word denomination and I am sure Adrian Rodgers knew the differences with various denominations. Islam is contrary to the will of God and does not worship God, denies the Trinity, denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ and its definition of religious liberty is to kill any infidels that do not convert. It is hard for me to see including Islam as another denomination.
What priorities I put on something will not matter to many in the larger scheme of things, but they matter to me in trying to manage the multitude of things in my life. Our church has paid no attention to it in the past and probably will not in the future. Not that many people are paying any attention to us, but we speak what we believe is the truth without thinking about tax exemptions.
Great exoneration in the Walsh case( though I assume he didn’t get the job back?). People (generally) should be hired and fired based on their ability to do their jobs, and how they do their jobs. I say “generally” because in some cases their job is about what they believe (e.g., pastor, Christian school administrator).
Finally, I said nothing about Islam being a denomination. There are two references to denominations in the BF&M, one in the article on Cooperation and one in the article Religious Liberty. While I have some friends who are SDA’s, I would find church cooperation with them to be both a violation of my conscience and a compromise to the revelation found in the New Testament.
I notice in article XVII, beyond the interest of Christian denominations, it also states “The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.”